[meteorite-list] Samples

From: Timothy Heitz <midwest_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:08:45 -0600
Message-ID: <007f01c84907$5b4fe320$0400a8c0_at_tim>

Bob and Listees

I know somebody that cut the butt ugly part off of an 95 % oriented
meteorite, it actually made it look much better.

It now looks like a perfect oriented iron and sits well.





----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Evans" <bobe5531 at comcast.net>
To: "Don Rawlings" <psc2410xi at yahoo.com>
Cc: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples


> Don,
> You touched a nerve there. I hate it when I see an incredible oriented
> meteorite and then realize that it has been cut or ground for a window.
> I ve seen a couple recently that I would love to have in my collection and
> was willing to pay top dollar until I seen the cut ( even on the
> backside ) and then the value dropped by 80 % in my eyes.
> All dealers should really know what they are doing before they ruin an
> oriented meteorite.
>
> Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Rawlings" <psc2410xi at yahoo.com>
> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
>
>
>> Doug and listees:
>>
>> I find it amazing that some dealers are only too
>> willing to destroy the beauty of an oriented meteorite
>> which is obviously a common type to get it classified
>> and then refuse to get a rare meteorite classified
>> because they think it "looks like" something someone
>> else has.
>>
>> How is the collector, or his/her heirs, going to sell
>> that rare meteorite that was never classified? It may
>> seem like a bargain at the time to buy a field
>> classified meteorite but there will come a time when
>> it will most likely be considered worthless in the
>> secondary market.
>>
>> Your advise is certainly sound.
>>
>> Don
>>
>> --- mexicodoug <mexicodoug at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> OK, I guess the first thing I assumed (and possibly
>>> Mike did, too) was since
>>> you called it a fall it was like Gao-Guenie: a
>>> witnessed fall.
>>>
>>> But since you are apparently discussing an
>>> unwitnessed fall from a hot
>>> desert a.k.a. for us, dense collecting area (don't
>>> know where else to get
>>> all those Mars rocks), the best thing to do is to
>>> plot the strewn field. In
>>> the contemporary world that seems so difficult since
>>> we can't even get
>>> location information for one stone that has already
>>> been through maybe
>>> several hands.
>>>
>>> So I only see two options or combinations between
>>> them:
>>>
>>> 1) Don't buy anything that is not documented.
>>> Discourage others supporting
>>> this.
>>> 2) Buy everything under an agreement of trust from a
>>> reputable seller and
>>> submit the batch to a scientist and let him/her
>>> minimize the guesswork and
>>> possibly minor tests if doubts come up. Or in a
>>> positive light, to convince
>>> the scientist to say the batch is the same material
>>> or cull out what is not
>>> to arrive at the TKW.
>>>
>>> If you want to by Mars without any formal
>>> classification, in the form of
>>> many pebbles, there is no solution except 2),
>>> whether you go it alone or
>>> spread the risk with partners. Because you would
>>> now be representing a rock
>>> that has been subjectively field "classified".
>>> While some people can live
>>> with this, others can't. If you can at least get
>>> locational information for
>>> your specimens, you don't have to give the full
>>> 20/20 - or anything for that
>>> matter if enough to meet the combined 20/20 is in
>>> curation as vouchers for
>>> the group after the naming of your material - if a
>>> scientist agrees to
>>> classify and pair it to an existing classification.
>>> This is the motivation
>>> of the newer guidelines.
>>>
>>> Some people get mad about subjective classification,
>>> because they broke the
>>> ground on the sample and "invested", while others
>>> are pissed that it is
>>> obvious and common sense dictates the material is
>>> what it is (arguments
>>> like, bought from the same trader, got from the same
>>> nomad, found together):
>>> with no further support except subjective judgements
>>> perceived as strong and
>>> well founded.
>>>
>>> This latter may be true, but that still doesn't
>>> remove the reality. Only if
>>> the specimens fit together can this be foolproof.
>>> Even an expert meteorite
>>> hunter scientist can find or purchase a handful of
>>> meteorites in the field
>>> from a known fall and every once in a while a
>>> terrestrial rock can sneak in
>>> that has you fooled like a baby. Let me say it has
>>> happened to me, and it
>>> is a very frustrating and humbling experience. Some
>>> time I'll tell the
>>> story of a meteorwrong that saw me coming it was a
>>> remarkable fraud that
>>> would surprise anyone - the best scientists, at
>>> their first glance,
>>> included.
>>>
>>> So, the reality is also that unless each rock is
>>> carefully studied, nothing
>>> can avoid ocassional duds getting mixed in. Not to
>>> mention incorrect
>>> pairing of similr meteorites. Luckily in the sandy
>>> desert this isn't as
>>> great a problem as areas with varieties of rocks.
>>>
>>> How Unsettling, How Disagreeable to the innocent
>>> collector and enthusiast,
>>> scientist alike- but true. This is rthe dirty
>>> laundry of meteorite
>>> collecting. Hopefully someone has a better
>>> suggestion, but I wouldn't hold
>>> my breath unless I were an alchemist capable of
>>> ethically transmuting
>>> batches of meteorites ;-) There is no free lunch...
>>> and no one can make
>>> promises for something that hasn't been done. (Or
>>> can they?)
>>>
>>> This whole thing gets sticky, when, you buy
>>> meteorites from the literally
>>> same batch that another person has already
>>> classified. Sure: you may have
>>> the same material, but then again, just because the
>>> original buyer may not
>>> have demanded 100% error proffing during the
>>> classification and is selling
>>> some stones under the classification he got, doesn't
>>> make yours any more
>>> paired to the ones that were used for the typing
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Doug
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Timothy Heitz" <midwest at meteorman.org>
>>> To: "mexicodoug" <mexicodoug at aol.com>;
>>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:47 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
>>>
>>>
>>> > Doug,
>>> >
>>> > This is what I'm thinking.
>>> >
>>> > Lets say I bought 50 Mars stones and the biggest
>>> was only 8 grams, now
>>> > what?
>>> >
>>> > I'm thinking what do I do now Doug?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Mike Farmer brings up a good point tens of
>>> thousands of Gao stones, and
>>> > why
>>> > dont cut them or classify all of them! Same with
>>> Canyon Diablo.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Tim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "mexicodoug" <mexicodoug at aol.com>
>>> > To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:16 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Tim,
>>> > I give up, what are you thinking - to sell them
>>> unclassified except for a
>>> > 2
>>> > gram stone and then give a scientist 0.4 grams in
>>> exchange for classifying
>>> > the entire fall? Naughty naughty
>>> > Doug
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Timothy Heitz" <midwest at meteorman.org>
>>> > To: "Timothy Heitz" <midwest at meteorman.org>;
>>> "Andreas Gren"
>>> > <info at meteoritenhaus.de>; "'Peter A Shugar'"
>>> <pshugar at clearwire.net>
>>> > Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:09 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > What if you had 20 stones all around 2 to10 grams
>>> each all from the same
>>> > fall?
>>> >
>>> > Tim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Timothy Heitz" <midwest at meteorman.org>
>>> > To: "Andreas Gren" <info at meteoritenhaus.de>;
>>> "'Peter A Shugar'"
>>> > <pshugar at clearwire.net>
>>> > Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>>> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:55 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Samples
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>> === message truncated ===
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
>> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 27 Dec 2007 11:08:45 PM PST